Abstract
This chapter outlines the implications of the proposed new model of innovation intermediation for further research, as well as proposes tools and approaches to implementing its insights in practice. The latter covers both macro-level policymaking as well as developing specific innovation intermediaries and interventions. Based on work with Innovation Caucus and other projects, a clear set of guidelines is proposed to show how the necessity for a holistic approach to innovation intermediation presented here can be translated into innovation policy. Furthermore, use of structural tools, such as logic models, to operationalise the proposed classification and typology when designing new interventions is developed. Finally, to further research and practice, opportunities are explored to map the synergies between policy and its implementation and the wider innovation management and entrepreneurial learning contexts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The importance of HEI within the context of innovation intermediation was explored by the author within the context of helping prepare HEInnovate report in the state of entrepreneurial university framework conditions in Romania (OECD/European Commission 2019).
Bibliography
Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies. Technology Innovation and Management Review, 2, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/603.
Autio, E. (2014). Innovation from Big Science: Enhancing Big Science Impact Agenda. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skill.
Barker, K. (1994). Strengthening the Impact of R&D Evaluation on Policy Making: Methodological and Organisational Considerations. Science and Public Policy, 21, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/21.6.405.
Barker, K., Sveinsdottir, T., & Cox, D. (2013). The “Innovation Turn” in Policy for Large Scientific Facilities: Reflections on Introducing Innovation Support Dimensions to the Operation of Scientific Research Infrastructure. In EU-SPRI (p. 37). Madrid.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1.
Cellini, S. R., & Kee, J. E. (2010). Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 493–530). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Innovation Intermediaries Enabling Open innovation. In Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape (p. 33). https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600536808017583.
Clark, H., & Taplin, D. (2012). Theory of Change Basics: A Primer on Theory of Change, ActKnowledge. New York: Actknowledge. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z201600010002RBM.
Comstock, D. A., & Lockney, D. (2007). NASA’s Legacy of Technology Transfer and Prospects for Future Benefits. In A Collection of Technical Papers—AIAA Space 2007 Conference (pp. 2969–2978). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-6283.
Datta, L. (1997). Multimethod Evaluations: Using Case Studies Together with Other Methods. In W. R. Shadish & E. Chelimsky (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook (pp. 344–360). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Solla Price, D. (1963). Big Science, Little Science. New York: Columbia University.
Esparza, J., & Yamada, T. (2007). The Discovery Value of “Big Science”. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 204, 701–704. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20070073.
Ferraro, P. J. (2009). Counterfactual Thinking and Impact Evaluation in Environmental Policy. New Directions for Evaluation, 2009, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.297.
Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, K. D., & Schumacher, J. (2008). Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In European Living Labs-a New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Følstad, A. (2008). Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, 99–131.
Gallison, P., & Hevly, B. (1992). Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. New York: Stanford University Press.
Heilbron, J. L., & Seidel, R. W. (1989). Lawrence and His Laboratory: A History of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/634.
Jacob, M., & Hallonsten, O. (2012). The Persistence of Big Science and Megascience in Research and Innovation Policy. Science and Public Policy, 39, 411–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs056.
Kinsella, W. (1996). A “Fusion” of Interests: Big Science, Government, and Rhetorical Practice in Nuclear Fusion Research. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773949609391079.
Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and Technology Commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1401–1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00803.x.
Nelson, R. R. (1959). The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1086/258177.
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. London: Policy Press.
Pavitt, K. (1991). What Makes Basic Research Economically Useful? Research Policy, 20, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90074-Z.
Power, M. (2000). The Audit Society—Second Thoughts. International Journal of Auditing, 4, 111–119.
Rossi, P., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (2003). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). London: Sage.
Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The Economic Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research: A Critical Review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00091-3.
ScarrĂ , D., & Piccaluga, A. (2020). The Impact of Technology Transfer and Knowledge Spillover from Big Science: A Literature Review. Technovation, 102165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102165.
OECD/European Commission (2019). Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Higher Education in Romania. [Report] Paris: OECD
University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2020). Logic Models—Program Development and Evaluation [WWW Document]. https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/logic-models/. Accessed 6 July 2020.
Vidmar, M. (2019a). Agile Space Living Lab—The Emergence of a New High-Tech Innovation Paradigm. Space Policy, 49. 101324
Vidmar, M. (2019b). The “Living Lab” Method: Discovery > Challenge > Innovation. Edinburgh. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21744.20484.
Vidmar, M., Rosiello, A., Vermeulen, N., Williams, R., & Dines, J. (2020). New space and agile innovation: Understanding transition to open innovation by examining innovation networks and moments. Acta astronautica, 167, 122–134.
Weinberg, A. M. (1961). Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States. Science, 134, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134.3473.161.
Zuijdam, F., Boekholt, P., Deuten, J., Meijer, I., & Vermeulen, N. (2011). The Role and Added Value of Large-Scale Research Facilities. Amsterdam: Technopolis Group.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vidmar, M. (2020). Toolkit for Developing and Analysing Innovation Intermediaries’ Interventions. In: Innovation Intermediaries and (Final) Frontiers of High-tech . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60642-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60642-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60641-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60642-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)